Kavanaugh accused of sexual misconduct in letter provided by Feinstein to federal investigators: REPORT


That was my gut reaction too.

What else worries me is this will be another proud moment for the deplorables when BK "survives this slanderous fake news by the lying democrats " as he is sworn in.


Ehhhh, it depends.

  • Catcalling or so-called “locker room talk”? On a teen with a subsequent impeccable record, I’ll grudgingly let it slide. Particularly given the ages of everyone involved–unfortunately I don’t think we can expect high school in the 1970s to have been a particularly enlightened place for feminist equality, but hopefully we’ll be able to hold today’s teenagers to a higher standard of conduct in the future.
  • Consensual sex that resulted in pregnancy and a secret abortion? Not necessarily disqualifying, but under these circumstances I think the public has a right to know since it’s KIND OF RELEVANT.
  • Assaulted or raped someone? Sorry, but unless you fully submitted to appropriate legal justice (statistically unlikely) and then made serious, visible efforts to be not an absolute shitstain in the future, you aren’t eligible for a position of power over so much as a book club–I don’t care how young and stupid you were.


I largely agree with you. On abortion I really don’t care what he did as a kid, it’s nowhere near as relevant as what he’s done/said as an adult. On that measurement I don’t want him on the court. As to #3. What if he did, was punished, and then flew right but his juvie conviction isn’t public? What if he did, wasn’t punished - which is more likely but may not have been his fault - and then saw the error of his ways and has flown right since?


Forgive me, but I think “Flying right,” i.e. “somehow making the herculean effort to not rape someone again,” is insufficient. You (i.e. hypothetical teenage rapist, not YOU-you) made a choice to perpetrate a direct crime against another person’s body. Even a teenager who gets behind the wheel of a car drunk and kills someone–while absolutely deserving of punishment to the full extent of the law and also a great deal of soul-searching–didn’t choose to irrevocably harm an individual the way a teenager who rapes someone does. It’s a choice that has life-altering consequences for the victim, and damn well should have life-altering consequences for the perpetrator.

Did this hypothetical rapist, in addition to hypothetically cooperating with the legal investigation and whatever punishment he merited, make any attempts to make life easier for his victim? Did he voluntarily transfer schools, maybe to a less-desirable one, so she didn’t have to see him every day? What did he sacrifice in terms of comfort and opportunity as reparations beyond the extremely meager justice our current system offers for this particular crime?

What has Brett Kavanaugh, hypothetical teenage rapist, done for rape survivors and women in general with his adult positions of power? Does he have a record of less comically lenient sentences in rape cases than the national average? (Doubtful.) Did he pursue Bill Clinton so doggedly out of a sense of justice for Monica? (HA.) Basically, what makes him eligible for this one-in-several-million position over all the (hypothetical) non-rapist candidates?

“Not having raped someone” is an extremely low bar that millions of men, even teenagers, are able to meet. Choosing to drop below that bare minimum standard means that yeah, you got some make-up work and sacrificing to do if you want to fill an elite position of public privilege.


Trump likely considers this to be a bonus.


Yeah, good thing these kept Clarence Thomas off the bench. Oh yeah…


That is NOT what you said. At all. You are lying. Get out of here with that.

Is it your opinion that substantial allegations of sexual misconduct should not be considered when evaluating someone for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?


They definitely should be considered - so when should we expect the “substantial allegations” to be made? All DF has done so far (at least publicly) was to wave a red flag in front of our faces.


FBI spokesperson confirms re: the Kavanaugh letter they have received “the information on the night of September 12” and "we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process.

I’d say submitting the information to the FBI for official inclusion into the case is more substantive than, say, tweeting about it.


Assuming that the alleged incident was a misdemeanor sexual offense, the statute of limitations was one year in Maryland, where he attended high school. So, the FBI is unlikely to investigate an allegation of such an offense from 1983 or before. Also, jurisdiction. The FBI does not usually investigate some kid stealing a kiss or copping a feel on a date, even if the allegations are recent. That would be more likely to be investigated by the local police.
What would have been interesting is if he had been asked about this during the hearings.


Which DF could have done, since she knew about it since the summer. Which adds to my suspicion that her actions and timing have a whiff of bad faith.


Absolutely. But that didn’t stop DF from ALSO issuing the aforementioned zero-calorie press release.


That’s a whole lot of assumptions. Bottom line, we don’t know what allegedly happened at of yet.

And just because they statute of limitations may have expired and he can’t be held criminally liable doesn’t mean this should be hand-waved away. Abusive behavior is often a pattern.


Dead girl will still get a pass from them. Dead horse however might…might raise an eyebrow with them these days.


Do you imagine, if DF had allegations of rape or sexual assault, we would be using terms like “sexual misconduct”?
And if it were those more serious charges, why would DF just sit on them until now? They could have made the hearings all about K’s high school improprieties.


I’d rather not speculate at this point - there’s still a lot that’s unknown.

It sure sounds like are you implying that it’s cool to be given a pass on prior sexual abuse as long as it happened a long time ago and wasn’t “serious”.


Nope. They flog those all the damn time. Witness the 60-odd votes to repeal the ACA.


That is how the law works. Whether it is cool or not, some things are no longer legally relevant.


Nice straw man, but we’re not talking about what’s legally relevant or not here.


The problem is unlikely to be the original offense. When he was being interviewed by the FBI prior to or early in the nomination process they likely asked him if he had ever been accused of a crime. If he denied such (in my imagining he didn’t consider his alleged impropriety as such) during these interviews and then this information surfaced, that’s evidence of lying to the FBI.